Well thats your opinion ..Now lets see what come's out of all this ....As we all know everbody make's mistake's ....But if there is no money lost here ...Who is right

John B says "We turn out literally thousands of B Com / LLb's from every university in town. You can't prosper as a nation by counting the results and then suing each other."

Very true and the galling part is that all these Accountants and Lawyers get paid a lot more than the Engineers.

Great article.

Despite the knowledge that the cliff isn’t far away, we go faster – idiots !

Currently politicians are talking about having big plans in order to achieve “Economic Growth”, but in reality it means “Uneconomic Growth".

A brave article Bernard. I suspect you know more than you let on. I agree wholeheartedly with you. He has used his humble and rich old uncle image to get the money in and it looks like he has used a lot of it for his own purposes. What I cannot understand is why he had to accumulate so much supposed wealth. On one hand he portrays himself as a non materialistic person and yet he has strived to be so wealthy. It does not add up to me. I think he is a very materialistic person. Just because he does not spend it on flashy things does not exempt him from being should I say it greedy. One could argue he is tight and does not know how to enjoy his wealth as he is always working too hard and striving for more. What makes him tick. Has he ever enjoyed the normal things in life like concerts,overseas holidays or a round of golf with his friends. Why do you need to have so much wealth. What really makes this man tick.

Yes ,lets trust the clever corporate types who run the Enrons,BPs, Lehmans and Goldman Sachs'of this world. Not to mention those huge banks that allow rogue traders to run riot with billions of clients dollars. Or those clever people with suits and degrees who invent financial instruments that no one,not accountants,govts or economists understand.
Enron brought down one of the oldest most respected accounting firms in the US.
The world's economy is tottering on the brink due to the corporate types not the Hubbards of this world.

FYI to all TVNZ is reporting that Hubbard is calling for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the decision to put him into Statutory Management.

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/allan-hubbard-calls-inquiry-3648920

"I would like my name vindicated, because my name has been linked with fraud," he says.

"The government was under pressure because of all these people had got away with so much money, when my name came up they thought well let's give him the works.

"They picked the wrong fella," he says.

The Hubbards claim the head of the Serious Fraud Office had made up his mind early on in the case, coming down personally to retrieve their secretary's computer. "He obviously formed the view he caught New Zealand's arch criminal gang. What has he caught? A raspberry I'd say," Hubbard says.

I wonder if Hubbard's lawyer reckons talking to TVNZ was a good idea.

big article bernard, I wait for the facts to roll out with interest, im still backing allan and will be bitterly disapointed if i am wrong

The straitforward bit? But good article.
The work ethic and not being ostentatious are important values, but allegedly not following due processes is a concern.

Howard

Bernard

I think it is true that the big banks were able to get help from the taxpayers to meet their liabilities by depositing mortgages with the RBA as funding dried up and I think also that applied to South Canterbury finance. But i am not sure if it applied to the other finance companies such as Hubbards private number 8 wire buisiness?

At one time there was that fellow from www.omo.co.nz who was pretty upset about all of this. Forget who that was now.

Can you confirm if some organisations got tax payer assistance to avoid collapsing while others did not?

And of course i am talking more than just the government guarantees of the depositors IOU's which applied to many finance companies. The banks got RBNZ borrowings in exchange for an amount of their created assets. Something that was truelly exstraordinary.

Hubbard could only operate in an environment of rising property values that everybody else was operating in where creating loan assets for property was pushing up the prices of property and where repayments of the M3 will destroy the M3 and create that deflation you were predicting would reach 30% of property values. And while all along all of these organisations were creating massive leverage and you were telling us after the 2008 crash how well regulated the banks were. In reality the banks have pushed what is possibe to the stratosphere and now we can only wonder how this will play out.

And mr Number 8 fencing wire is now the bad guy?

Any answer much appreciated

I am not saying i know all of the facts here and i could be entirely misrepresenting the overall story.

As i read it so far we are all guilty of creating this mess. You have your house in Auckland and i have my houses in europe and New Zealand. Did we earn that?? I no longer know if i did or whether i was just a ruthless speculator profiting at the poor down troddens expense. But we knew surely we were playing a game where the bold took what was available and hoped that when the music stopped we would be sweet and it would be the other guy we could feel sorry for, as we felt wise and somewhat superior.

What happens now?

Thanks

Andrew

The thing is he doesn't use a computer, which is basically how NZ was 30 years ago. Doesn't mean anything, and I think in the end he will come out of this looking good. The thing is many of these accountants are probably not familar with non computerised systems, so wouldn't have a clue where to start. It is a bit of a dumbing down of the system since we have had computers.
The thing is why weren't these other finance companies put into stat man years ago. Investers in other comapnies have over 6 billion either frozen or lost, and this money has been sucked from the NZ economy. Of course there are those lucky investors whos finance company just snuck into the GG, and have been bailed out by us taxpayers. Ironic that people who have lost money in NZ finance companies have to pay other people who also lost money.

I agree that the fact that Allan does not use a computer is not suspicious.In the good old days all the banks and stock firms kept hand written ledgers.In regard to the accountants involved in the process,southerners John McPherson of SFO and Trevor Thornton of Grant Thornton are both older than I,thus they will be very experienced in regard to accounting records written up by hand.After all,all computerisation does is to deal with large volumes of transactions.John was the top student in his year at Uni and has had decades of experience in accounting,audit and insolvency.
There has been a limited payout under the Govt Guarantee scheme to date,and do not forget that there have been levies imposed for membership of the scheme.

If you have seen correspondence from Hubbard Funds Management,you will realise why it is not listed on the Companies Website.
That is because it is not a company.
Since the 39 cent income tax rate was introduced,there has been an explosion of company formation.
The fact that Hubbard does not perform this funds management function under a company structure logically implies to me that he is willing to hold himself personally liable for what happens to funds invested with him.
This is stark contrast to those who wish to hide behind the company veil,while holding all they can in trust as regards their private assets.
I have on a number of ocassions looked at the Companies website,and put Allan Hubbard's name in as a director.
Try it and use your watch to see how long it takes for the site to travel through his list of directorships.
Who else in NZ would have as many ?
I have gone from company to company tracing the ownership path through the labrynith.
And then there is comment about the complexity of his business structures.
It has long been there for any member of the public to view.

Investors in Aorangi and HFM will form their final views on the basis of the outcome of the present investigations.
The fact that only one of the 407 investors in Aorangi has lodged a complaint,reflects that the others were not concerned with the absence of the same.
There is a feeling among many NZERs that we now have too much red tape.
Just because you are presented with a prospectus and investment statement does not mean that you will make a successful investment.
Many investors just bin them,as they can't understand them in any case.

Bernard.

Well here's a guy who has been honest and frugal and rather than put on ostentatious displays of wealth or take off overseas leaving nothing he's re-invested his own money alongside those who would want to borrow to achieve their dreams. How many people has he helped in this way?

What's better?

A bank manager captured by a commission/bonus funelling overseas money into the country approving any cheque written out on the day of the auction by the likes of the Crafars who expect, even demand, that the paperwork would be fixed up at a later date. I don't see Hubbard being captured in that way, matching up local lenders and borrowers.

His lending may well be caught out by any collapse in land prices but if that happens it won't be the only and in any event the bubble in prices caused by hot overseas money wasn't his doing.

Good though provoking article, B.
The SFO will find, what it finds. They will do their job;report and we shall all know. That's, after all, what we pay them for.
But the New Zealand business way cannot be "the end justifies the means" ie: No one looses money, so it's all okay. It must be "it's how you play the game"

John key:

He acknowledged that the decisions the Government made would not always be popular in both the wider public and among the National Party's own membership. However, he asked the members to remember it was the broad direction the Government was taking and its future depended on what it did and how ordinary New Zealanders felt about its actions.

"I think its fair to say not every decision we make they will agree with."

John sure knows how too keep the 'majority' in a so-called "democracy" happy. This attitude of 'we know best' is why i hate our system of government. it's essentially borders on a 3 year dictatorship. Time for CBR's! Do we offered that option on the next referendum? ah, No! real democracy remains in the 'too hard basket'

Talking about Hubbard’s feels like having nostalgia from the 50s and 60s back – I like it in a way – better then the ever increasing “Wall-street Boys”, the “Greedy Bankers” and the “Hanover Bricks” anyway.

…and despite the knowledge that the cliff isn’t far away, we go faster !
...and I’m sick of politicians talking about having big plans in order to achieve “Economic Growth”, but not knowing in reality they are talking about “Uneconomic Growth".

In stead of that mad worldwide rush - I wish we had more time to make things better again - adding quality of all sorts.

I just hope for the Hubbard’s that nobody, but especially our system doesn't makes them the victims of our time.

It is interesting that unlike all the other finance companies who have failed, he hasn't blamed the credit crisis, even though I am sure the credit crisis has affected his companies.

If you think about it, banks, with all their lending for overpriced houses could be in a lot of trouble if house prices drop much more.

Yep more big business men like Fay, Richwhite, Petrovic, Bryers, Hotchin and Watson is exactly what we need!

Maybe what we need is more business people with integrity - at least Hubbard had that in spades even if his record keeping and disclosure was a bit below par.

I reckon you can cut someone a lot more slack if they have their money in there with yours - hence I am puzzled why the authorities would waste resources and capital chasing Hubbard when there have been many "big business" shysters muicking about with other peoples money who have seen little scrutiny whatsoever.

My reply to AndyH is that just as it is not a startling revelation that HFM actually existed,it is also not a startling revelation that AH was lending money out on preferential terms to certain parties.
Anyone moving in the rural servicing industries was very aware of that fact because corporate farming has always been a very topical issue in rural areas.
A comment to me might be "Oh I hear AH has lent $x to a young couple who live on that dairy farm down the road interest free."
The dairy industry has its own telephone line through which information travels many hundreds of kms.
If we have lending such as this,then of course it is going to rank behind the banks from a security viewpoint.
I am still awaiting all the posts from those who AH told that they had a first mortgage over a certain farm,but those posters seem to be silent.
If a percentage of the funds are lent out interest free,it logically means that reduces the returns to AH who is putting up the capital.
A $36 million equity I would hope is a decent size buffer in security terms.
As we have found with the likes of Canterbury Morgage Trust,you may well have loans with adequate security,but in the current environment,getting them refinanced is the difficult part.

From comments that have been made in the media by those close to the action,it does appear that there are statutory technical issues in the case of Aorangi,which have not been complied with,which therefore entitle the government to investigate the regulatory side.
But in saying that,I believe that the statutory management appointments provide a sideways entry into being able to deal with the primary problem,which is ensuring that SCF does not go to the wall.
The level of related party loans which SCF had,at its last reporting date,is of some concern,particularly if they are secured over equity .
On a tangent,when Mr Norgate had the float for he and other parties to invest money which was then to be used to buy shares in PGGWrightsons,I expressed that I would not touch it with a barge pole.
And I have been proved correct in my assessment.
Thus when we have loans to Southbury Group by SCF,I share the same concerns.
From the viewpoint of those who have a vested interest in the survival of SCF,and that does not include those such as myself who are already covered by the extended government guarantee,to neutralise AH and take over the decision making in regard to his business interests,allows the future of SCF to be assisted by the selldown of strategic assets which can be turned into cash,and the sale of the equity interest in SCF to other parties,at a price which reflects current value.

To Anonymous.
My occupation leads me to use analytical logic.
Of course I have no proof that AH is not operating something like Quantum Investments,which fleeced substantial funds from gullible NZers.
I'm not sure if it even qualified as a ponzi scheme because I never saw any proof that anyone got paid out their principal.It was all verbal and the Quantum people never fronted up from Antigua.The mugs who invested did get regular statements,but never any interest payments.
If AH lived in Auckland or Waiheke Island,and regularly spent him time quaffing champagne on a yacht down at the viaduct,at his luxury villa in the South of France,his Mayfair townhouse, his NewYork apartment,had his photo in the Women's Weekly while celebrating his 80th birthday in Monaco with a 25 year old dolly bird in tow,regularly drove to work in his chauffered green Bentley,complete with a boy to carry his bags,and had his own corporate jet,then yes I would be suspicious.
That would be because as with Penny and Hooper,the facts would not pass the sniff test.

Great Article Bernard. No question AH trades on his frugality.

Its complete nonsense. The bible explicity states that when you do good works you don't trumpet them all around town and blow your own horn, but AH had plenty to say about what a good person he is in the Listener Article. The good book goes on to say, do not let the left hand know what the right hand is doing, AH has that one down pat.

Look, its a criminal offence to raise money from the public without an investment statement and prospectus. The Securities Act is quite clear, if even one person is deemed to not be a habitual, (professional) investor and money is raised from them, then the company must pay back all investors funds.

Clearly there's no way in the world all 408 people qualify for an exemption under the Securities Act as professional habitual investors, (at least one believes they definitly deserve the protection accorded by the Act, otherwise the complaint would not have been made). The Securities Act will require all funds for all investors in Aorangi to be re-paid if there's a case to answer for just that one investor and AH will be personally liable.

AH has made an absolute meal of his frugality and frankly I'm sick of it. As a Christian and an acountant, I withdrew my money from SCF when it came up for maturity and bought a brand new S Class Mercedes-benz with it.

Some peolle think owning a beach-side bach is the thing to do, and at the moment they're going down in value faster than a brick falling off the edge of a cliff, I happen to love driving a world class car it floats my boat, and it costs less than said Bach, so what's the big deal Alan ? Of course I'm not a workaholic and a director of over 500 companies so I guess i'm just a sinner at heart, right ?

Just because your a magpie investor who likes to own heaps of companies, I like to own a proper Car. Oh wait, of course, its such a waste of money, all accountants waste money on flash cars, the bible according to Alan Hubbard....give us a break Alan, we're sick of you preeching your lifestyle is the only truly righteous one.

You've broken the Securities Laws, you're a criminal and its tiome to face the music. Now be a real southern man and just quietly face the music when it comes rather than havig to hire a high priced Auckland Law firm, (oucch, I bet that hurt his pride)

Finally today I read that Jean was humiliated that she had to put a few groceries back becasue she couldn't afford them.
Oh dear, I've got a few clients who's business's are really struggling and that's happenned to them, welcome to the real world buddy.

Tauhei Notts you sum it up when you state that you have concerns that the National Government might take everything away from the Hubbards.
If a manager is appointed to control your affairs and makes the decision to sell down your assets at a time when the value of those assets is recessed,that is indeed the danger.
Rather like a mortgagee sale.
From a rational post by Tauhei Notts,I now move on to the post by Sick Of The Rorts.
This poster gives AH a hard time after the article in the listener.
Question number one,did the Listener approach AH or did he approach the Listener.
Question number two,when interviewed,should AH have told the truth in regard to how he has assisted people over the years,or should he have said nothing in this regard,thus not telling the truth.
I went to church alot when I was growing up,but I don't go around quoting what the bible said when I deal with life.
I judge people on their overall morality,not on whether they read and adhere to what the bible said,and not on whether they go to church or not.
My parents taught me to tell the truth.
As long as AH is doing that,that is all that I want.
In regard to the Securities Act,as people close to the action have stated,the paper work clearly will not be up to statutory standards in its entirity.
Now give me a listing of the 407 Aorangi investors who are standing outside AH's house with a placard,complaining about this fact.
The fact is,there has been millions of dollars lost by investors over the last six years,and the fact that a prospectus has been issued,does not prevent the loss of investor's capital.
How many investors who have lost capital from fixed interest investments over the last four years,knew where their capital was being lent out,and to whom ?
Absolutely none that I know of.
In the days of solicitors operating Nomineee companies and taking in money from the public,and lending it by way of morgtgage,the investors did know details of the specific security.
By comparison,take the Canterbury Mortgage Trust as an example.
Investors in such a fund did not have such knowledge.
Nor did they in any of the other many collapsed entities.
Ah has already said he will personally guarantee Aorangi.
Your bleating is not telling the world anything knew.
Of course we already know about the wealthy person/habitual investor provision in the Securities Act.Yawn.
If my clients saw me driving an S class Merc,they would think I was ripping them off.You must live in Auckland.
Why do we have to have this new area statement about being a Christian.
I no longer regularly attend church,but live my life on the basis of high moral standards in my dealings with people,but do have to expound to the world that I am anything in particular.
Your reputation gets around the small country that is New Zealand,and whether people read the bible or go to church has no impact on that.
It is how you live your live and deal with people.
I call it integrity.
Some people think buying a beachside property is the thing to do,others think it is buying a Merc.
I don't subscribe to either viewpoint.
There are councils as far away as you could get from Auckland using Simpson Greirson for legal advice,rather than their local lawyers,so in that context,what is wrong with AH using Russell McVeagh.
No point sending a boy to do a man's job.

There is only one Kiwisaver Fund that has actually shown a decent return over the period that Kiwisaver has been in operation,and that is Milford Asset Management's Aggressive Fund.
Brian Gaynor was the only Fund Manager with enough brains to keep cashed up because of what he could see as the heat in the Sharemarket.
Consequently his fund has made 30% since inception.
Doesn't say much for the ability of those running the other Kiwisaver Funds.
If it wasn't for the government chucking a bit in,you may as well keep your money in the bank.
Some of these outfits twist the figures around and present them in a way that makes them look good.
If a Kiwisaver Fund has actually made 30% in the last twelve months,you can guarantee it has lost 30% in the peiod from inception to up until 12 months ago.
I was talking to a lawyer last week who said that 25 years ago he thought he had better start saving for retirement,so joined a Tower Super Fund Scheme.
He said his total return over 25 years had been about 1%.
He stressed that meant 1% in total..Not per annum.
I told him that he should have spent the last 25 years buying up
houses,which would have given him a far better return,plus the discipline of having mortgages to pay off.
If you want to invest outside the banks then be prepared to deal with lots of sharks who clip the ticket at every step.
It is any wonder that NZERs are in love with property.
It is the only way I have seen people actually make any money,assisted by the fact that NZ is a tax haven.
White collar crime in NZ does pay.
You won't end up behind bars.
Rob your local corner dairy,and by contrast you willend up behind bars.
NZ is full of double standards.

The guarantee has a considerable time to run yet.
The SCF situation will be controlled by those who do not wish to see it collapse,until it is stabilised.
AH will pay the price for the bad portion of the loan book.

And when I am talking about competent Financial Advisors,all I am looking for is someone who if you give them a capital sum for ten years,can get you two percent better than you can derive from a bank over that period,after all fees are deducted.
I don't think that is an unrealistic expectation.
But where do you find someone that has those skills.
I guess they all live offshore.
That is why people buy houses.

"at others expense" was the key phrase,

I take the privilege to make the one hundredth comment: He’s a good guy- pasta !

If you do not know anything about farming,there is no point in making uninformed comments.
I have had 35 years involvement in servicing the rural sector and am able to make informed comments.
You could also at least think up a title more colourful than calling yourself anonymous.

NZ is a country of knockers.
We don't like successful people.
I was last evening while I waited for my takeaways,skimming through one of those trendy magazines that come out of Auckland.
Marc Ellis was on the cover,having won the award for the top male for the second time,beating John Key and a couple of trendy TV announcers.
Marc made exactly those comments,and stated that in Auckland there are always people trying to drag you down if you are successful.
That is what is happening with Allan Hubbard.
There is an army which has emerged,very pleased to put the boot in.

You say: "My point here is that Hubbard's supporters have made a typically New Zealand mistake of believing that small business is better, more noble and more reliable than big business. They made the mistake of believing that faith in the individual is more reliable than faith in an institution."

So you think the following statements are typical New Zealander mistakes - I say you have missed the point and here is why.
- Small business is better than big business?
I can't see the two compared just on the point of "better" being any point at all. Both exist - you claim we need more big in NZ (Conincidently I agree and get annoyed that we keep selling them overseas when they get to small-medium) but we also would be sunk without the small.

- Small business is more noble than big business?
I don't believe any business can be noble, only the individuals involved with it. There is no such thing as a noble business. Businesses are just tools.

- Small business is more reliable than big business?
Well who really knows - I've got not good data on this (does anyone?) and what do you mean by reliable? In what sense? My point is you've said nothing in the statement that was your point.

"They made the mistake of believing that faith in the individual is more reliable than faith in an institution."
Is it more reliable? People can die - that's fairly unreliable right there. But an age old concept called honour was about being reliably true to what you believe in. If you ever meet someone who is reliably true - you know you've got a good chance of having faith in them intill they die. Institutions? well they can go on forever can they not?

"The average life expectancy of a multinational corporation-Fortune 500 or its equivalent-is between 40 and 50 years"
http://www.businessweek.com/chapter/degeus.htm

Plus they happen to have leadership changes at least every 10 years with new directions etc. So in terms of life long investment patterns - if you can find someone you trust, who lives with honour who likes to make money with your spare cash is that not a highly valid investment option?

Another point:
"Just as any small business that becomes very large should institute the disciplines and protections of corporate rigour, investors should have expected those same disciplines and rigours from Allan Hubbard. They didn't get that."

Now lets assume that the already 59 failed finance/managed funds did practice corporate rigour. Oh yea point already made. What the heck is corporate rigour other than an ideal.

Lastly:
You talk about "Hubbard's supporters". I find these people a contradiction here in NZ - isn't our long begotten ill the fact that we suffer from Tall Poppy Syndrome? These "Hubbard Supporters" don't fit the bill here. So let's label them, make them out as ignorant and ear bash them.
They should be respected for standing up for someone they believe in - as one would for a friend or "Uncle" that they had no reason to think otherwise - anything else is cowardly - just note them for their courage and stick to assessing the finance.

Allan Hubbard is not poor. There are a lot of New Zealanders who seem to feel that someone who comes across like AH does is not capable of committing any crimes such as fraud. Only people who get around in shiny suits and flash cars do that. There are some New Zealanders and their number is growing who think maybe AH used his rich old kind uncle who lived a simple lifestyle profile to get people to drop their defences. I keep coming back to the same question. He lived a simple lifestyle on the face of it but he has strived his whole adult life to be in my opinion excessively rich. Why did he do that if he did not intend to enjoy it. Whose money did he use to get there. What makes him tick. Was it just a game. He came up from a very poor background so I assume he wanted to make something of himself.

Bernard

An interesting article/opinion piece and a job well done geting some debate going. A couple of observations/comments. Firstly, as a M.D of a medium sized business it is fascinating to read that AH opens the mail and writes all the cheques. His business is siginificantly larger that ours and I spend many hours working through daily, weekly and worldly issues - opening all the mail and making all the payments is a surpising use of time and provides an exceptional insight into AH. Put simply - too much detail = issues will arise.

It appears AH has continued with the same management style whilst the business has increased in size and complexity resulting in many governance issues arising (i.e. inability to cope with the workload - proof is the 7 day working week). The unfortunate situation that appears to be arising is that, although his intentions are mostly likely genuine, the gaps/issues in his businesses are likely to have an impact on an uneducated investor - which is (assumedly) why stat mngmt was applied.

Finally, we all forget in this country - we are simply so small on the world stage. An international survey came out recently. It highlights NZ being reasonably average on many aspects of business leadership and performance. The whole AH issue would be interesting to anlalyse in this (link below). www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____43278.aspx

Pretty good article Bernard.

However, I suspect the auditor firm was actually Woodnorth Joyce, not Woodnorth Myers.

Ancient history now, but I was involved in trying to sell some BI software into SCF. Spent a bit of time with the then staff.

BI depends on hooks into solid financials and other data-munging apps, and in looking back on our lack of success on that sell, we realised we had been told very little, and certainly had gotten no sense of scope and purpose of the underlying apps. All was 'in transition', 'being looked at' etc.

There just wasn't much 'there', there.

So I'm unsurprised to see Grant Thornton's coments aboot record-keeping etc.

And having a background in public-sector, old-school fund accounting, I know that as soon as money changes funds more than a couple of times, it's effectively lost: it's a consequence of the limited human memory stack: 7 + or - 2 levels are about all our poor old neurons can cope with.

SCF will take a Lot of unravelling, and this argument isn't about corporate versus personal management styles, as much as proper back-office processes versus handshakes and omitted/incomplete/badly filed paper.

So congrats, Bernard, for touching this third rail of South Island iconograpghy - Saint Allan.

As I have already stated,Woodnorth Joyce is a Timaru practice.Myers & Co is an Ashburton Practice.The audit of SCF is clearly a combination of the resources of both practices,which is why it is signed off as Woodnorth Myers.

cant we just  shake a mechanics hand  and handwrite a WOF for him ?

What's the bet that if major discrepencies are found by the investigators and money is lost then the people of Timaru will blame the Government for calling in the Stat Manager? "It wouldn't have failed if Hubbard had been left to carry on", they'll all say.

Surely its not Alan's fault? Anyone who drives an old car must be a saint right?

Some of the posters on this thread would be very suitable for a role as a retired lady with her knitting needles counting the heads as they fall into the basket after severance by the guillotine.An alternative role would be as spectators in Rome to watch unfortunates being torn apart by wildbeasts,the latter themselves being pawns in the game.And as for dragging up Marc Ellis and his ectasy pills.Pretty weak stuff which reinforces his comments in the magazine.You forgot about National nude day when a streaker accepted his onscreen stuff and did a streak.across the rugby ground in Greymouth.The coasters loved it.And the time he was caught on a skateboard going down a hill in Dunedin not in teetotal state.

Have the people defending Allan Hubbard read the list of  "Prior Period Adjustments" in the 4 June 2010  SCF prospectus? That is, the "adjustments" that had to be made to SCF's 2009 financial statements from February 2010 when Maier took over and started work on SCF's books? Do they even know what a prior period adjustment is?

Tribeless thank goodness you have finally emerged to give some logic to this thread.

Nice work Bernard, I guess only time will tell where the chips really lie.

um - small guy vs big corporate............

if Hanover is used as an example of a big corporate and Hubbard is the little guy, how does this work?

Hanover - $554M of investor funds (well, not any more!)

SCF - $2B of investor funds

.......which number is bigger?

FYI Aorangi investor Hilary Muir of Geraldine thinks Allan Hubbard is a genius, the NZHerald reports.

"Several points regarding this report ring hollow, especially in relation to the impact on the Hubbards' livelihood. Some means of support could have been initiated prior to this cruel injunction. What is new in this report is the financial capability of Allan Hubbard. Who in New Zealand matches his abilities and who judges a genius?" http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1065...

cheers

Bernard

Yep, Allan Hubbard sure is a genius.

When he's not making interest-free loans that aren't getting paid back, he's giving out unsecured second and third mortgages - and yet he still manages to provide a return to investors!

It's like he is making money out of thin air!

.....printing money in 2012.

my god what a depressing country is that place!

Yes the talented have all vacated (even if only enough to recognise a lame horse when seen), so many reasons not to waste your life battling for an overpriced ex state house in gloomsville while you fork out fifty bucks for a block of cheese! Oh the irony of living on an isolated farm where you can barely afford to consume your own produce..

Still, you've got your 'maori' heritage to grasp on to to cheer yourselves up with, ay kiwi kids?

Noo zullund. Nice place to grow up, even better to leave!

What a great article Bernard. Included lots of aspects I have been thinking about. What bugs me is that the bill for SCF is going to be picked up by all of us which I really resent. Why should greedy people be paid out by us! If things look too good to be true - why are we soooo naive. Keep up the good info.

t

I dont believe that sainsbury programme,the Hubbards living in that depressing environment,they must have a wardrobe in their bedroom that is a portal to another world.

Mr Hickey, before you make such sweeping statements as the Standard and Poor's was sceptical and downgraded South Canterbury from its investment grade rating to junk status, you should read the Standard and Poor's criteria for credit ratings and you will see that the credit rating in the Auditor's report is far from junk status. 

Those types of sweeping statements without any substance appearing on the internet or in the media can only have a bad effect on the NZ economy.

ZuluTrade is an automated rostrum of trading. You determine amongst the many house exchange experts and the signals desire be automatically transmitted on your account. Zulutrade is altogether free. No knowledge in sight of loot is necessary! All that you comprise to alter is to register you in Zulutrade and to reckon the greatest farm animals stock market experts. I explain you all in my website